KUBOR V DICKSON.

INTRODUCTION.

The case of Dr Imoro Kubor v Hon. Seriake Henry Dicksonis a landmark case that is revolved around the admissibility of electronically generated documents in the Nigerian court. It is one of the earliest case in which the Supreme Court extensively interpreted. The central issue was whether digital publication could be admissible without proper certification under sec 84 of the Nigeria Evidence Act 2011. This case became the foundation upon which digital evidence are being admissible in court and has guided the court on how to approach technological matters in litigation. 

PARTIES:

Plaintiffs/ Appellants: Dr Imoro Kubor and the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN).

Defendants/ Respondents: Hon Henry Seriake Dickson and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)

FACTS OF THE CASE.

Dr Imoro, the candidate of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) challenged the outcome of the Bayelsa State Governorship Election which was held on the 11 February 2012, in which Hon. Seriake Dickson, the candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) was declared the winner by Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The petitioner contended that the election was invalid due to reason of noncompliance with the Electoral Act and that the first respondent (Dickson) was not qualified to contest the election at the time it was held. Also, he contended that the election was marred by irregularities including falsification and manipulation of results in various local government areas. The petitioner tendered several document and oral testimonies to substantiate his claim. He also sought to rely on computer generated document particularly printout of online publication from Sahara Reporters and Pointblank News to show the alleged disqualifying facts about Dickson and these documents were printed from the internet and tendered to the tribunal without a certificate as required by sec 84(4) of the Evidence Act. The respondent denied all allegations insisting that the election was conducted in compliance with the law. They objected to the admissibility of the online publications arguing that they were computer generated evidence and therefore inadmissible for want of proper certification under the Act. The Electoral Tribunal upheld the respondent’s objection, ruling that the document is inadmissible because they were not accompanied by the required certificate. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the appellants appealed to the court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the tribunal. Still aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court arguing the court to reverse the decision of the lower court and admit the online publications as valid evidence to prove that the 1st respondent was not qualified to contest the election. 

LEGAL ISSUES. 

1. Whether the computer generated documents (Internet printouts from Sahara Reporters and Pointblank News) tendered by the appellants were admissible in evidence under sec 84 of the Evidence Act 2011?
2. Whether the 1st Respondent (Dickson) was qualified to contest the Bayelsa State Governorship Election held on 11 February 2012?
3. Whether the Governorship Election of 11 February 2012 was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)?

COURT HOLDING.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts which had earlier rejected the online publications tendered by the appellants, holding that the documents were not accompanied by the certificate of compliance required under Section 84(4) of the Evidence Act. The Court reiterated that any electronic document not properly certified is inadmissible in evidence. The Court further found that the appellants had failed to establish any irregularity in the conduct of the election and had not proved that the 1st respondent was unqualified to contest. Therefore, the election of Seriake Dickson was upheld as validly conducted, and the appeal was dismissed.

RATIO DECIDENDI OF KUBOR V DICKSON.

The Supreme Court in Kubor v Dickson, per Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen JSC(as he was then)  laid down an important principle on the admissibility of electronic evidence and computer generated evidence in Nigeria. Thus, the court held that for any document produced by a computer such as electronic printouts, emails which is to be admissible in evidence, the party seeking to rely on it must strictly comply with the provision of sec 84 of Evidence Act which requires that such evidence should be accompanied by a certificate of compliance which must identify the document, describe the manner of its production, state that the computer was operating properly and affirm that the information contained was supplied in the ordinary course of business. 

In this case, the appellant sought to rely on computer generated internet printouts to support their allegation that the 1st respondent was not qualified to contest the Bayelsa State Governorship Election. The respondent objected to the admissibility of the document on the ground that they were not certified and that the appellants had failed to produce the certificate required under sec 84(4). Both the Electoral Tribunal and the court of Appeal agreed with the respondents and rejected the documents and on further appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. Thus the Supreme Court reasoned that the computer generated documents are a special category of evidence and demands a higher standard of authentication due to the possibility of manipulation or alteration inherent in electronic records to guarantee their reliability. Hence, the court emphasized that failure to comply with the mandatory provision of sec 84 renders such electronic evidence worthless regardless of its relevance to the case. 

By this reasoning, the Supreme Court established that no computer generated document can be admitted into evidence in Nigeria unless the conditions in sec 84(2) and (4) are satisfied and that noncompliance with those requirements renders such evidence inadmissible irrespective of its relevance. Therefore, the appellant’s petition failed and the election of Seriake Dickson was upheld.

OBITER DICTUM IN KUBOR V DICKSON.

The Supreme Court made remarks on the authentication and reliability of electronic evidence. The court noted that:

“The law must make cognizance of the realities of modern times, where documents and communications are generated and stored electronically. However, such advancement in technology does not dispense with the need to ensure authenticity and reliability in the admission of such evidence”. Thus, the court observed that electronic evidence was enacted to accommodate electronic records but the safeguards provided in sec 84 must be observed to prevent abuse and the tendering of manipulated or fabricated evidence. It warned that allowing uncertified electronic documents may undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings.

In addition, the justices stressed that:

“The courts are not opposed to electronic evidence, but parties seeking to rely on such evidence must lay the proper foundation required by law to establish its authenticity”. This statement expressed that electronic evidence is part of the evolving evidentiary landscape and that the law must balance with procedural safeguards and that compliance with the law is not optional. It further state that the since the consistency is becoming digital, the law also must evolves alongside it without compromising the reliability and credibility of evidence. This has been the principle guiding the admissibility of electronic evidence on the grounds of strict conformity with sec 84 of the Evidence Act

COMMENT.

The case established the foundation for the admissibility of digital evidence in Nigeria which serves as a landmark precedent for later case involving online materials as it tend to fill the gap created in the case of FRN v Femi Kayode. Thus, at the core of the case was the admissibility of computer generated documents which the appellant sought to rely on to challenge the validity of the Bayelsa State Governorship Election. However, the court refused to admit such docume4nt stating that the mandatory condition under sec 84 must be met. 

Hence, this decision exhibit the strict interpretation of sec 84 by the Nigerian Courts and insisted that before any electronic document can be admitted, it must be accompanied by a certificate of authentication explaining the way such document was produced. This decision is rooted in the need to prevent fraud and manipulation that can easily occur in digital environments and by insisting on such compliance promotes the credibility of electronic evidence and discouraged the admission of unverified online materials. Thus, in an age where data alterations are possible, the strict compliance promotes credibility and transparency in the judicial process.

Though, some scholars have argued that the Supreme Court is being too rigid where access to official documents or certified online materials can be difficult while some critics argued that the judiciary should adopt a more flexible interpretation where electronic evidence is the only means of proving electoral irregularities. Thus, despites these critics, Kubor v Dickson has provided more clarity and guidance on the operation of sec 84 and is then a precedent for subsequent cases such as Brila Energy Ltd v FRN where the court applied the requirement for certification of computer generated evidence before admitting them into evidence.

In conclusion, this case therefore informed us how Nigerian courts treat digital documents civil, criminal and constitutional matter and also highlights the judiciary willingness to adapt to digital realities ensuring that technological evidence does not undermine procedural integrity.